Friday, February 01, 2013

Curt Shilling, a former pitcher with a career in baseball spanning 20-years, said in a series of tweets, that he did not understand why there was such an issue in professional sports with players coming out.

He also said that he had played alongside gay players, and that it did not matter, and that their performance on the pitch was the important issue.

Mr Shilling said: “I’ve never understood this ‘issue’ with gay players? Who cares? I know I played with some, their sexual orientation never had much to …To do with how they hit with RISP, or pitched in late and close situations, why the hell would what they do in the bedroom ever matter?”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

If I take a woman out to a restaurant, I'm surely not responsible to keep her provided with toilet paper. And if I take her out to a restaurant too many times, I'm surely not responsible for any costs invoked from either being overweight or attempting to lose the weight. Unless I dragged her to the restaurant and forced her to eat the fettucine alfredo at gunpoint, which seems like an impractical use of a hostage.

Your argument is only consistent if you believe abortion is fundamental wrong.

No, jackass, but a man being forced to support a woman's child he *did not want to have* isn't so far removed from a woman being forced to have sex she *did not want to have* to make the response invalid.

If he did not want to have a child, he shouldn't have had penis-in-vagina sex with the woman, since children result from penis-in-vagina sex. He consented to the sex, knowing the potential consequences thereof, while a rape victim is obviously not consenting to anything. That's the whole idea behind rape - the lack of consent.

So, because a woman is evolved to own the baby factory, she gets to decide if the man has to support a child.

No, society is the one that gets to decide whether the man has to support the child. It decided, and he does. Suck it up, buttercup.

(Yes, it's still valid to show you the stupidity of your position by this analogy.)

You can start showing stupidity any time you want. Though if you could, I think you would've done it by now.

If I take a woman out to a restaurant, I'm surely not responsible to keep her provided with toilet paper. And if I take her out to a restaurant too many times, I'm surely not responsible for any costs invoked from either being overweight or attempting to lose the weight.

Those analogies are jaw-droppingly stupid. Seriously, Dan, you can do better.

Your argument is only consistent if you believe abortion is fundamental wrong.

You can repeat this as often as you want, but it is still the same argument as to why woman shouldn't be allowed to have abortions.

No, it isn't. Women are allowed to have abortions if they want them because individuals are entitled to have control over what happens to their own bodies. When a woman and a man have penis-in-vagina sex, then after the sex is done, there are no further consequences for the man's body. There are significant further consequences for the woman's body, since the fetus is a part of her body until it has developed enough to become autonomous. For that reason, the woman is entitled to make the decision about the disposition of the fetus, while the man is not.

In the event that she decides to keep the fetus and have a baby, the moral responsibility for the creation of that new life is shared equally between the two parents, and for this reason the man has a moral responsibility to support the child. He also has a legal responsibility to do so, since the current law reflects that moral responsibility.

There are significant further consequences for the woman's body, since the fetus is a part of her body until it has developed enough to become autonomous. For that reason, the woman is entitled to make the decision about the disposition of the fetus, while the man is not

With you on that one.

In the event that she decides to keep the fetus and have a baby, the moral responsibility for the creation of that new life is shared equally between the two parents, and for this reason the man has a moral responsibility to support the child. He also has a legal responsibility to do so, since the current law reflects that moral responsibility.

Lost me. Just because a woman has decided to undergo the hardship of pregnancy doesn't mean a man should then be responisble for the caring of a child for the next 21 years.

I've said it numerous times now but all this boils down to men must be punished for having sex while women have been liberated to have sex.

Men are allowed to have as much sex as they want. Oral sex, anal sex, solo or mutual masturbation... they can even have consequence-free vaginal sex if they exercise a certain amount of discretion in selecting their partners. But if they create a new life, they have an obligation to support that child until it is able to support itself.

It's interesting to see your world view, in which a woman being forced to raise a child on her own, with only financial support from the father in lieu of actual parenting, is a sign of women's sexual liberation.

No, jackass, but a man being forced to support a woman's child he *did not want to have* isn't so far removed from a woman being forced to have sex she *did not want to have* to make the response invalid.

I certainly could be wrong, but I'd be pretty comfortable saying that anyone's who's been raped is probably going to find this comparison pretty ridiculous, if not actually horrifying.

It's interesting to see your world view, in which a woman being forced to raise a child on her own, with only financial support from the father in lieu of actual parenting, is a sign of women's sexual liberation.

No one is being forced to raise a child. She chose to raise a child. She could have opted to not have the child.

I certainly could be wrong, but I'd be pretty comfortable saying that anyone's who's been raped is probably going to find this comparison pretty ridiculous, if not actually horrifying.

Traumatic physical experience often impedes rational thinking about similar trauma in others, yes. The comparison is simply there to point out that in both cases physical demands are being made against an unwilling participant.

Lost me. Just because a woman has decided to undergo the hardship of pregnancy doesn't mean a man should then be responsible for the caring of a child for the next 21 years.

The fact that a woman kept a pregnancy does not necessarily imply that she made a decision to keep the pregnancy. A birth is the default end of a pregnancy, even if a woman makes no decision at all. If a woman hit her head and fell into a year-long coma the day after she became pregnant, she'd still have a baby in nine months. That's why the moral responsibility for the birth remains whether or not the biological father intended for the pregnancy to happen - once conception occurs, the birth is the inevitable result absent any direct action to oppose it, even in the absence of any specific moral decisions about the birth by either party.

What about a man whose only way to make a living is through blue-collar, manual labor. Isn't 18 years of "toil" an infringment of bodily autonomy too?

Nobody is requiring the man to earn a living specifically through blue-collar manual labor. That's a choice on his part. There are jobs requiring minimal physical skill from their workers that include no manual labor at all.

Similarly, he isn't required to "work" at all. This isn't a chain gang. If he can provide adequate support for his child without working, that's fine. Similarly, if he's unable to find work, and thus lacking the resources to provide support, he can obtain a modification of his support agreement from the court.

Traumatic physical experience often impedes rational thinking about similar trauma in others, yes. The comparison is simply there to point out that in both cases physical demands are being made against an unwilling participant.

No one is being forced to raise a child. She chose to raise a child. She could have opted to not have the child.

She is choosing to raise the child, but is forced to raise it alone, if the father elects not to participate in the child's life.

The comparison is simply there to point out that in both cases physical demands are being made against an unwilling participant.

The father isn't an "unwilling participant". Unless he's improbably ignorant or mentally incapable on a fundamental level, he knew that pregnancy might result from intercourse when he stuck his dick in his partner. He accepted that risk at the time of intercourse, and the potential consequences of his actions that go along with it.

A birth is the default end of a pregnancy, even if a woman makes no decision at all.

There's your error, Vlad. You're still operating in a sex-equals-procreation mindset. The world has moved on. There is a 4 month window of pure, human choice making between ejaculation/conception and "we're going to have a baby." A decision is *always* made to either continue on the biological glide path, or to exit the biological glide path. That decision is always made by the woman involved (barring illegal and immoral compulsion, naturally.) The responsibility for that decision belongs to her.

She is choosing to raise the child, but is forced to raise it alone, if the father elects not to participate in the child's life.

She had access to this information when she made the choice to have and raise the child. It's her own fault that she's alone in the matter.

The father isn't an "unwilling participant". Unless he's improbably ignorant or mentally incapable on a fundamental level, he knew that pregnancy might result from intercourse when he stuck his dick in his partner. He accepted that risk at the time of intercourse

You continue to erroneously conflate sex/intercourse with the decision to have a child. Sex is necessary, but not controlling. The decision to have a child occurs well after the sex is over, and our current legal and moral systems give the woman complete control of making that decision. A man with no control or input in the decision to have a child can not be morally responsible for the child.

EDIT: clearly, with in vitro and artificial insemination, sex is not "necessary." But for the parameters of this debate, it is assumed.

I most definitely am not. I already suggested that if a man wants to exercise absolute control over his reproduction, he elect to engage only in the vast panoply of sex acts that can not result in pregnancy, or select one of the numerous partners with whom penis-in-vagina sex can not result in pregnancy. You can have a hell of a lot of hot, kinky sex without sticking it in a fertile lady's hoo-ha.

A decision is *always* made to either continue on the biological glide path, or to exit the biological glide path.

Not really, no. See the hypothetical example of a woman paralyzed by indecision until it is too late to legally procure an abortion, or a woman who is unaware of the pregnancy until that point, or of a minor who lacks the standing to make her own moral determinations of that nature but who has not informed her parents or guardians of the pregnancy, either. None of those women have made a decision to have a child, but all will have one nonetheless.

She had access to this information when she made the choice to have and raise the child.

Maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. You can't axiomatically assume it.

You continue to erroneously conflate sex/intercourse with the decision to have a child.

No, I don't. If anything, you're the one erroneously conflating two non-overlapping concepts: A woman having a child, and a woman deciding to have a child.

The man in a sexual pair is intellectually aware of the potential consequences of sex, whether or not he intends for those consequences to happen, just like a drunk driver is intellectually aware that he could accidentally run a light and plow into a bus full of Girl Scouts. He has a moral responsibility to accept the consequences of those actions, whether he explicitly pursued those consequences or merely stumbled upon them.

Maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. You can't axiomatically assume it.

If she goes 4 months without ascertaining who the father is and whether he wants a kid, again, not his fault or problem. Why are you so reticent to give the responsibility for her own decision to the woman? Is she not a fully enabled, empowered actor with human agency in the world? Stop treating women like they're children.

That's a different point entirely and has nothing at all to do with what I said. Don't claim we're all in this new world where the result of procreation is mutable at the snap of a finger. That's false.

Should I perhaps use forced labor analogies instead. You're talking about making a guy give up 20% of his earnings - you know, his labor value? - for 21-25 years, give or take, all without having any say whatsoever in whether or not that commitment is made. All for having the audacity to have unprotected sex. Because he sinned and came inside of her, she now has the right to garnish his labor value for decades if she wants a baby.

Her fault, not his. In a liberated world, she has to, well, you know, man-up and make a call. Well come to freedom, lady.

I'm sure women everywhere will be receptive to your call for them to "man up".

Your position does not, of course, change in any way the fact that you are assigning moral responsibility to the woman for a decision that she did not make.

Seriously? Unaware she was pregnant 4 months into it? She's and idiot...

Or she didn't think she could become pregnant because she was on the Pill, and for similar reasons saw nothing unusual about not having a period. Or she's nearing menopause, and her periods are extremely irregular, with the same result. Or she naive about such matters because she was home-schooled by religious nuts, and has no understanding at all of how pregnancy works from a biological standpoint.

Even if she were just an idiot, though, so what? The law still applies to idiots, and they have the same moral standing as anyone else.

Argument to cases involving minors is categorically outside of the bounds of debate about what grown women and men do with their bodies.

It depends on the area, but minors are legally permitted to have sex in many jurisdictions. Surely as a native of Georgia you know that...

Fringe cases are useful in arguments of this nature, in that they demonstrate the failure points of the participants' positions. A comprehensive moral system on this issue needs to account for the many possible situations in which neither the mother nor the father made a decision to have the child, but a child was born nonetheless. My position does, and yours does not.

Your position accounts for "comprehensive morality" but ignoring the rights of men entirely. It's easy to put together a "comprehensive" system when you're willing to jettison half of the population's rights just to get to your preferred end game. The better solution is to create a less than comprehensive system that is just for all parties and then adjudicate special cases, such as minors, as special cases arise. Absolutism is centuries dead and buried.

If she goes 4 months without ascertaining who the father is and whether he wants a kid, again, not his fault or problem.

Maybe he was unavailable for some reason: in solitary confinement in prison, or at sea and in the Merchant Marine, or something of that kind. Or she erroneously believed that one man was the father, when in fact it was a different one, and by the time she discovered the error it was too late for him to have any input.

You're talking about making a guy give up 20% of his earnings - you know, his labor value? - for 21-25 years, give or take, all without having any say whatsoever in whether or not that commitment is made.

He had a say when he decided to have penis-in-vagina sex with the mother and run the risk of pregnancy. Nobody held a gun to his head and forced him to #### her (at least, I hope not...).

Because he sinned and came inside of her, she now has the right to garnish his labor value for decades if she wants a baby.

Sin has nothing to do with it. He has a responsibility to support the child in whose creation he was an equal participant. That responsibility would not be any greater or lesser if he had missionary-position sex in the marital bed with his wife of twelve years than it would if he were nailing a hooker doggy-style on the altar of a church.

That's a different point entirely and has nothing at all to do with what I said. Don't claim we're all in this new world where the result of procreation is mutable at the snap of a finger. That's false.

As I said, I have no problem with a male wishing an abortion having to cover costs involved with such. If that involves travel and expenses to the nearest clinic, then so be it.

Or she erroneously believed that one man was the father, when in fact it was a different one, and by the time she discovered the error it was too late for him to have any input.

Whoa, whoa. Wy isn't it fair to make her bear the burden for her error? Isn't she the most culpable party if she can't figure out paternity? You want to know for sure who the poppa is and thereby insure that you get child support, don't sleep around.

Sin has nothing to do with it. He has a responsibility to support the child in whose creation he was an equal participant.

If he was an equal participant, he would have either the right to unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, or to force the pregnancy to be brought to term. He doesn't, therefore he is not an equal participant.

Your position accounts for "comprehensive morality" but ignoring the rights of men entirely.

No, it doesn't. There are far greater infringements on bodily autonomy than forcing someone to write a check once a month. No one is mandating that the dad change diapers, or share in the myriad other physical duties associated with keeping the child alive and healthy. Writing a check is literally the bare minimum burden that can be imposed on the man, but to trump that up, you're embracing the taxes=slavery idiocy (and the taxes=rape variant) routinely trotted out by libertarians. Child support is already a compromise position, and it's not a particularly onerous one compared to the labors that come along with actually raising a child.

Your position accounts for "comprehensive morality" but ignoring the rights of men entirely.

Men have lots of rights. They have the right to choose to have the sexual act that results in conception, or not to have it. They also have the same rights as any other parent once the child is born. But once a man leans over the edge of the building and drops the rock, he isn't allowed to just say, "Oh, well, gravity's not my problem. If it hits anybody, it's not my fault."

Absolutism is centuries dead and buried.

No, it isn't. There are a few things that are always right, and a few things that are always wrong. There are lots of moral gray areas as well, of course, but this isn't one of them.

No, it doesn't. There are far greater infringements on bodily autonomy than forcing someone to write a check once a month. No one is mandating that the dad change diapers, or share in the myriad other physical duties associated with keeping the child alive and healthy.

Actually, unless you're giving a man the option of changing the diapers et al in lieu of writing the check, the check is almost inherently a greater infringement on bodily autonomy. Where do you think the money comes from, the money fairy? He has to earn that money, with his body. And you're not giving him the option of using his body to care for the child in a different way.

Actually, unless you're giving a man the option of changing the diapers et al in lieu of writing the check, the check is almost inherently a greater infringement on bodily autonomy.

The trick you're trying to pull is neat, but still a trick. So you're saying that you think it would be less of an infringement on bodily autonomy for the state to mandate that the man change 1/2 of the baby's diapers? Just making sure that's actually your argument.

If he was an equal participant, he would have either the right to unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, or to force the pregnancy to be brought to term. He doesn't, therefore he is not an equal participant.

He is an equal participant because the sexual act was the result of mutual consent and he is the source of half of the genetic material in the offspring resulting from that sexual act.

He does not have equal moral standing in the disposition of the fetus, but that's not the same issue at all.

Vlad, all of your arguments start from your conclusion. Which is why they're not convincing. There's no other way to read them so that they make sense. You're using the words "choose" and "forced" whimsically, based on your pre-formed conclusion.

Wait what? Guys are now responsible for sexual activity that didn't even involve them?!?

Where did you get that from what I wrote?

Woman has sex with Man A and Man B. Woman becomes pregnant by Man B. Woman believes incorrectly that Man A is the father until it is too late to ask Man B about his input into the decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy.

Woman and Man B have equal responsibility for the child, once it is born, even if Man B did not find out about the child until its birth was a fait accompli.

The trick you're trying to pull is neat, but still a trick. So you're saying that you think it would be less of an infringement on bodily autonomy for the state to mandate that the man change 1/2 of the baby's diapers? Just making sure that's actually your argument.

No, what I am saying is that the man doesn't get the option to have dominant custody of the child because of the strong, almost insurmountable bias in favor of awarding custody to the mother, absent extraordinary facts (i.e. mother's drug abuse or psychiatric problems).

Lets say, instead, that it was an equal playing field. The child is born; the child has to be cared for. It could be society as a whole taking responsibility; but society has decided the biological parents get the first bite at the apple.

This is already unfair to the man, who had no ability to decide whether or not to bring the baby to term. But forget that for now.

Someone has to make money to take care of a kid, and someone needs to change the diapers. If both parties could express a preference, and then a judge apportioned the burden among both parties taking into account their preferences, but without any predisposition towards assigning certain duties to one party over the other because of their sex, then that would be the most minimally infringing approach. And in contemporary society, clearly the rational one; there is no reason a man should be compelled to work and a woman to change the diapers (or pay someone else to change the diapers for her, as the case may be).

And yet, the way our system is set up, the man is compelled to work. That is wrong.

I left that part out because it has no apparent connection whatsoever to what you said. The mother and biological father have an equal degree of responsibility for conception, whether the biological father is aware that the mother has become pregnant or not.

Actually, unless you're giving a man the option of changing the diapers et al in lieu of writing the check, the check is almost inherently a greater infringement on bodily autonomy.

Sure the guy can seek custody, seek to have her write him checks too, the vast majority of men in such a situation prefer writing the check to her (well they'd prefer not to have custody and write no checks, but really that really isn't an option at present).

But once a man leans over the edge of the building and drops the rock, he isn't allowed to just say, "Oh, well, gravity's not my problem. If it hits anybody, it's not my fault."

The rampant refusal in this country to accept responsibility/accountability for one's actions is really endemic at this point - no one wants the responsibility for anything anymore it seems, be it personal or business matters

Because from conception until birth, the fetus is a part of the woman's body, rather than the man's, and control over one's own body is one of the most fundamental human rights that there is.

Here's your problem; you put this huge disconnect into the equation between sex/conception and birth. Your process goes:

Act of sex - shared responsibility
Gestation - boys have no say in this at all!
IFF birth - boys must live by the decision of girls

Once you disconnect the men from the moral process, you can't just randomly plug them in again after someone else has made a life decision in their stead. Either the men/fathers are involved in the decision process all the way through, or they're out when they're disconnected during gestation. Sorry if that's inconvenient for the liberated classes. Life is hard in the free world, sometimes.

The rampant refusal in this country to accept responsibility/accountability for one's actions is really endemic at this point - no one wants the responsibility for anything anymore it seems, be it personal or business matters

Yep. Clearly women don't want to accept responsibility or be accountable for having casual sex with men and then have to support the child for 21 years because they decided to keep the child instead of giving it up for adoption or aborting it.

Yep. Clearly women don't want to accept responsibility or be accountable for having casual sex with men and then have to support the child for 21 years because they decided to keep the child instead of giving it up for adoption or aborting it.

Seriously. The argument on my side isn't about avoiding responsibility. It's about assigning responsibility to the proper parties. The party who makes a decision is responsible for that decision's results.

Act of sex - shared responsibility
Gestation - boys have no say in this at all!
IFF birth - boys must live by the decision of girls

Yep, that's all true, and I stand by every word of it.

Once you disconnect the men from the moral process, you can't just randomly plug them in again after someone else has made a life decision in their stead.

I'm not "disconnecting" men from the moral process. They have autonomy over all the parts of the process that concern them: The decision whether or not to engage in actions that may result in conception, and the myriad decisions that come with parenthood if/when the fetus is carried to term.

Life is hard in the free world, sometimes.

A remark that would be more appropriately directed to wanna-be deadbeat fathers than to me.

Is a woman required to "live with the consequences" of getting pregnant by mistake?

Of course. Those consequences include (but are not limited to) carrying a fetus to term, a difficult and dangerous process, or undergoing an invasive medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy. If it were the man's body, he would have moral standing in the decision instead of the woman, but since it isn't, he doesn't.

The party who makes a decision is responsible for that decision's results.

Unless the decision in question involves whether or not to have penis-in-vagina sex with a woman, in the full knowledge that a pregnancy may result, apparently.

He does not have equal moral standing in the disposition of the fetus, but that's not the same issue at all.

Why not? If there's a window in which to decide whether to convert the conceived entity to a human birth, and he's on the hook for a human birth, why would he have no say during the window of choice?

Indeed, if the man admits paternity pre-viability, why can't he compel an abortion in lieu of 21 years of providing support? (The fetus isn't entirely a "part of the woman's body" since the DNA provided by the man is his. Why can't he compel an abortion to reclaim his DNA?)

Why not? If there's a window in which to decide whether to convert the conceived entity to a human birth, and he's on the hook for a human birth, why would he have no say during the window of choice?

Because once the fetus becomes a part of the woman's body, her right to autonomy over her own body supersedes any other considerations. The first and most important right any individual has is the right of control over himself or herself. It should be sacrosanct.

Indeed, if the man admits paternity pre-viability, why can't he compel an abortion in lieu of 21 years of providing support?

Because, as I already noted on numerous occasions earlier in the thread, he already provided implicit consent for the woman to determine the disposition of any fetus, should one be created, when he had penis-in-vagina sex with her. He doesn't gain some kind of easement over her uterus purely because they did it.

Because, as I already noted on numerous occasions earlier in the thread, he already provided implicit consent for the woman to determine the disposition of any fetus, should one be created, when he had penis-in-vagina sex with her. He doesn't gain some kind of easement over her uterus purely because they did it.

You've certainly repeated this often. Repeating your assumption is not compelling argumentation. You seem to have a hang up on this issue.

Because, as I already noted on numerous occasions earlier in the thread, he already provided implicit consent for the woman to determine the disposition of any fetus, should one be created, when he had penis-in-vagina sex with her.

And again, by the exact same token, she would already provided implicit consent to bear the child by having penis-in-vagina sex. Every argument against allowing male choice also precludes the justification of female choice. If you're pro-life, then simply say it.

Because, as I already noted on numerous occasions earlier in the thread, he already provided implicit consent for the woman to determine the disposition of any fetus, should one be created, when he had penis-in-vagina sex with her.

Why do you keep repeating "penis-in-vagina sex"? Everyone here seems to know how babies are made.

As Sam opened the door, I am curious what everyone else's female significant other thinks. If not, any respected female friend. Open the thread!

I imagine there would be a split amongst women who are capable of being objective and those who formulate their thoughts out of pure self interest.

Regardless, it seems equally relevant what men think, as long as we are tying up their wallets, hard work, and emotions for 21 years.

As the woman has the power to abort the baby and thus stop the man from being involved rather than involving him without his consent, it seems she should bear the sole financial responsibility of a decision to proceed. It makes no sense to any fair-minded person to fight for or support the right to abort, only to deny responsibility for not doing so.

But I'll leave you guys/girls to sort this out. I'm headed out to play tennis.

Now that I am back ... zop: (Responding to 491, feel free to go there to see the whole thing)

Also, what's particularly pernicious about your insistence on the "child's rights" is that it it particularly targets the rights/autonomy of poor men. Because our safety net for children is reasonably well developed (thought not, I guess, to your standards), it's fairly common for unemployed single women to choose to have children that they could not independently support. You and I both are familiar with the litany of recent studies explaining why elective single-motherhood is increasingly common among lower-class women, so setting that aside for another discussion.

Hogwash. My insistence targets the child. It treats all parents equally. If a woman carries to term and rather than adopt the man takes custody, then the woman should have to pay child support. Both parents are morally responsible. And yes there is a safety net, but even though I believe children have a right to be supported I would rather parents not freeload (which you seem determined to do in this instance) of of the safety net.

The child is born and both parents need to support it. If they can't then clearly society needs to step in, but why should hardworking folks let the parasite parents freeload? It was their choice to have sex and it is their genetic offspring. They should deal with it and not sponge off of taxpayers.

Again society needs to provide for children if the parents can't, but parents should not be able to freeload off of society based on their actions. You don't want to deal with caring for children? There is an easy solution - watch out where and with who you have sex. Use birth control responsibly. Know your partner.

If you screw up (there has been talk of condom failure a huge percentage of that failure is user error. Know your tools. treat them right. Install correctly. Then they have really good success rates.

BTW - There are also guys sweet talking the woman, saying they want to be with her forever and then bailing (after it is too late to get an abortion) than there are women trapping men with their pregnancy. But who cares? Have sex, have a kid, you have responsibility.

Claiming something impacts the poor more than the wealthy is completely ordinary. The poor are impacted more by almost everything. But the poorest most vulnerable is not the dude who wants to have sex, it is the child.

Again society needs to provide for children if the parents can't, but parents should not be able to freeload off of society based on their actions. You don't want to deal with caring for children? There is an easy solution - watch out where and with who you have sex. Use birth control responsibly. Know your partner.

Act of sex - shared responsibility
Gestation - boys have no say in this at all!
IFF birth - boys must live by the decision of girls

1) Yes.
2) They have a say, but the woman has the decision.
3) After birth then BOTH parties have an obligation and neither gets to have opted out

And Sam I read your 486.

If the male partner is not interested in having a child, he should be allowed to opt out of fatherhood in equal measure as to the woman's right to opt out of motherhood. At no point should he be required to support a child he does not wish to have.

And I disagree. It is both parties genetic material. Both choose to have sex, knowing children were a possibility. Parents have in virtually every society for virtually all of history been the primary party responsible for caring for their children, and if they can't then society steps in.

You might want to pretend to be post-mammalian, but I assure you, you are a mammal.

1) Yes.
2) They have a say, but the woman has the decision.
3) After birth then BOTH parties have an obligation and neither gets to have opted out

Same thing here for #589. Apparently you are dead set against adoption and if someone has a kid they have to tough it out. I'm sure the kid will appreciate having two parents that didn't want it nor want to raise it around to raise him/her.

So why do you keep asking this? Seriously are you stupid, reading impaired, or have no memory? I have stated I am OK with adoption, and in fact when the parents can not care for the child, if it is in the best interests of the child then it is OK. But the parents are the first line of defense, they should not be allowed to just freeload off of society.

Same thing here for #589. Apparently you are dead set against adoption and if someone has a kid they have to tough it out. I'm sure the kid will appreciate having two parents that didn't want it nor want to raise it around to raise him/her.

Sigh. A guy not wanting to pay child support to his baby mama is not the same as both parents putting a child up for adoption, nor is it the same as society taking a child away from parents for cause.

Once more for the reading impaired. This is about what is best for the child, not the selfish freeloading male(or female). Society has come to the conclusion that the best people to raise/support children is the birth parents. Under certain circumstances, when it is best for the child, then the child is put somewhere other than with his parents. Absent those circumstances the parents are responsible.

This means if dad chooses to raise the child then mom should be obligated to pay child support. And vice versa. If society determines the parents can't take care of their responsibility and/or both parents bail on their child then society steps in for the benefit of the child.

So why do you keep asking this? Seriously are you stupid, reading impaired, or have no memory? I have stated I am OK with adoption, and in fact when the parents can not care for the child, if it is in the best interests of the child then it is OK. But the parents are the first line of defense, they should not be allowed to just freeload off of society.

I would think my stupidity is obvious since I have engaged in an argument against the side that basically says "man up" over and over again for hundreds of posts.

But yes you do appear to be against adoption since you routinely qualify when adoption is permissible and your qualifiers aren't really based on what is actually happening.

To boil it all down one side is saying "because" and the other side is saying, "nah-ah". There, I just saved us another 300 posts on the subject.

You think men should be able to screw who they want and freeload on society running from their responsibility, because woman get to decide if the pregnancy comes to term. I think the Child's rights are paramount and you refuse to address the rights of the child.

At least Sam varies his argument a bit, and uses words like normative.